#it is so morally ethically and economically harmful

[inbred-mothman]

Hey guys just a little note: if you use AI art in any way shape or form, you can go ahead and block me. And if I see anyone I interact with using it, I'll block them immediately as well, there's no reason you should have to steal our jobs just because you "wanted art"... that's why we are here. That's why artists exist. There are countless artists who would die to get commissioned (me included) by ANYONE. But you have to go and show your fucking GREED by stealing our work. It is STEALING. by using AI generated images as a replacement for art you are putting artists as a whole at risk. I'm disappointed in some of the fandoms I'm in because of this. I thought we were better than that.

TLDR:

DNI if you use AI generated images

[ldknightshade]

morality: a character creation guide

creating and understanding your oc’s personal moral code! no, i cannot tell you whether they’re gonna come out good or bad or grey; that part is up to you.

anyway, let’s rock.

i. politics

politics are a good way to indicate things your character values, especially when it comes to large-scale concepts such as government, community, and humanity as a whole.

say what you will about either image; i’d argue for the unintiated, the right image is a good introduction to some lesser discussed ideologies… some of which your oc may or may not fall under.

either way, taking a good look at your character’s values on the economic + social side of things is a good place to start, as politics are something that, well… we all have ‘em, you can’t avoid ‘em.

clearly, this will have to be adjusted for settings that utilize other schools of thought (such as fantasy + historical fiction and the divine right of kings), but again, economic/social scale plotting will be a good start for most.

ii. religion + philosophy

is your oc religious? do they believe in a form of higher power? do they follow some sort of philosophy?

are they devout? yes, this applies to non-religious theist and atheist characters as well; in the former’s case… is their belief in a higher power something that guides many of their actions or is their belief in a higher power something that only informs a few of their actions? for the atheists; do they militant anti-theists who believe atheism is the only way and that religion is harmful? or do they not care about religion, so long as it’s thrust upon them?

for the religious: what is your oc’s relationship with the higher power in question? are they very progressive by their religion’s standards or more orthodox? how well informed of their own religion are they?

does your oc follow a particular school of philosophical thought? how does that interact with their religious identification?

iii. values

by taking their political stance and their religious + philosophical stance, you have a fairly good grasp on the things your character values.

is there anything they value - due to backstory, or what they do, or what they love - that isn’t explained by political stance and religious and/or philosophical identification? some big players here will likely be your oc’s culture and past.

of everything you’ve determined they value, what do they value the most?

iv. “the line”

everyone draws it somewhere. we all have a line we won’t cross, no matter the lengths we go for what we believe is a noble cause. where does your character draw it? how far will they go for something they truly believe is a noble cause? as discussed in part iii of my tips for morally grey characters,

would they lie? cheat? steal? manipulate? maim? what about commit acts of vandalism? arson? would they kill?

but even when we have a line, sometimes we make exceptions for a variety of reasons. additionally, there are limits to some of the lengths we’d go to.

find your character’s line, their limits and their exceptions.

v. objectivism/relativism

objectivism, as defined by the merriam-webster dictionary, is “an ethical theory that moral good is objectively real or that moral precepts are objectively valid.”

relativism, as defined by the merriam-webster dictionary, is “a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.”

what take on morality, as a concept, does your character have? is morality objective? is morality subjective?

we could really delve deep into this one, but this post is long enough that i don’t think we need to get into philosophical rambling… so this is a good starting point.

either way, exploring morality as a concept and how your character views it will allow for better application of their personal moral code.

vi. application

so, now you know what they believe and have a deep understanding of your character’s moral code, all that’s left is to apply it and understand how it informs their actions while taking their personality into account.

and interesting thing to note is that we are all hypocrites; you don’t have to do this, but it might be fun to play around with the concept of their moral code and add a little bit of hypocrisy to their actions as a treat.

either way, how do your character’s various beliefs interact? how does it make them interact with the world? with others? with their friends, family, and community? with their government? with their employment? with their studies? with the earth and environment itself?

in conclusion:

there’s a lot of things that inform one’s moral compass and i will never be able to touch on them all; however, this should hopefully serve as at least a basic guide.

[howtofightwrite]

re: the question about stunning someone with head trauma (and how you Should Not unless you're okay with them dying) would knocking the wind out of a character be a better way to have that happen?

Yes, but no.

So, knocking the wind out of someone is a lot safer. I wouldn't say perfectly safe, this is how Harry Houdini died, after all. However, it's a lot safer that head wounds, and usually wouldn't result in any major injuries.

The downside is against a trained opponent, who's ready for the hit, it's not going to work. This isn't called a, “sucker punch,” without reason. If your abdominal muscles are tensed for the punch, they will absorb a lot of the blow. So this works better against the unaware or the untrained.

The other problem is, it's not going to take someone out for the duration of the scene. In a self defense situation, winding your attacker is great, because it lets you create an opening to start your escape. But, it's not going to stun someone for minutes. From personal experience, you can measure the time you gain from winding your opponent in seconds.

There are combos that start with winding someone and lead into more painful blows that can extend that opening. But, there is a continuity of force: Incapacitating someone for longer requires inflicting harm that is increasingly difficult (impossible) to moderate.

If the goal is to escape from someone who means you harm, then yeah, an elbow strike to their stomach, will give you the opportunity to get out of there.

If the goal is to have a prolonged conversation while standing over a defeated (but still living foe), that's not really something you can do intentionally. At the same time, intentional application of lethal force isn't as reliable as you might expect. For example, gunshot wounds to the head are only fatal ~98% of the time.

The issue with this train of thought is that the individual inflicting harm cannot moderate for the desired outcome. Knocking someone out, only for them to recover, is 100% possible. However, you can't do that intentionally. And having a character who does bounce another person's head off the pavement until they stop twitching, is an incredibly violent act, and it's not going to be a casual, “well they're just knocked out.” It's a, “Carl, that kills people,” moment.

If you want a character that is disproportionately violent, and probably scares everyone around them a bit, this will feed into that presentation. If you want a character who's a good person because they don't kill people, then attempting to inflict life altering injuries on someone is probably not the best way to demonstrate their ethics.

(Remember, Batman doesn't kill people, he just shatters their spines; leaving them at the mercy of the American health care system. So, the real moral lesson of Batman is that it's better to be psychologically unwell and wealthy, than economically disadvantaged. You can murder half of the city, and he'll gently deposit you in a padded cell that you can escape from whenever you get bored of the place, but if you so much as imply that you'll resort to less than legal means to put food on the table for your starving family, he will end your existence as a vertebrate.)

And, yes, I fully realize that, by the nature of his character, and comics, Batman (like most superhero comics) is poorly suited to discuss the complex factors involved in street level crime. This this is more of a critique on the treatment of “violence is okay, so long as no one ends up in the morgue,” more than a specific character critique.

There's another part to this that worth remembering, and I know I've said this before, but when you're writing, violence offers diminishing returns. Violence releases the tension you've been building. You can think of it like a rubber band gun. Until you pull the trigger, that rubber band is under tension, and the moment you release it, you hit your audience. Now, getting hit a rubber band is a sharp, and somewhat unpleasant experience, but the second time is going to annoy you less than the first, and if you're constantly bombarded with them, you'll quickly become numb to their impacts.

I'm not saying that you can't, or shouldn't, use violence, however as a writer, you are paying a very real cost whenever you use violence to resolve a scene. It's something that you do need to consider carefully. Part of my aversion to questions like this comes from this structural consideration. A lot of writers make the mistake of using non-lethal violence somewhat indiscriminately. This can absolutely harm the credibility of your characters, and your world.

There is absolutely a place for violence in stories, however, this is a tool that is most effective when used sparingly, or deliberately. (This doesn't mean the violence itself needs to be deliberate, just your use of it.)

A lot of the time when someone says, “I want to use violence to temporarily remove a character from the scene,” that's a scenario that will harm your story. There are a lot of ways to remove a character from a scene, and I don't mean, “alternatives to fighting,” like hiding from them or talking them down. The limit here is your creativity, and in a lot of ways, violence is the least interesting way to achieve your goals.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[max1461]

On the diffuse harms point, if you had a button that would take $0.01 from every person in the US and give $2M to one random person in the US, would you press it? how many times?

In abstract thought experiment land I think it would very probably be moral to do this; if it wouldn't, that has more to do with how the million dollars affects the recipient than anything else. Change dollars to utility (or whatever) and I feel pretty confident in saying it would be moral. I am a strong "mildly inconvenience 3^^^3 people in order to save one life"-er. I think the problem with this thought experiment is that in the real world, mildly inconveniencing very large numbers of people has second-order effects that are actually worse than mildly inconvenient, like that thing about how a certain number of people probably die due to the economic inefficiencies caused by the TSA. But if I was a wizard and I could arrange that 3^^^3 people be mildly inconvenienced in a truly second-order-effect-free way in exchange for saving one life, yes I would definitely do it. Would I arrange that 3^^^3 be tortured to save one life? I don't think so, even if the torture was less bad than death. In fact, I probably wouldn't arrange for even 50 people to be tortured to save one life, again even if the torture was less bad than death. I'm not a utilitarian but I'm also not an... ethical maxminner, or whatever. I'm at some difficult to place position in between.

In the real world, I think taking $0.01 from every person in the US and giving $2M to one random person would almost certainly be bad, for various implementation reasons if nothing else.

[librarygoth]

to preface I did enjoy Barbie, and I feel like I need to make that really obvious bc it’s the internet and some feminine presenting cis woman will call me a misogynist bc I’m butch lmfao, but I think the movie’s core messages are weakened by the way it handles manhood, masculinity, and queerness. Forgive the typos—I’m probably not gonna read this back:

In Barbie world, there is no room for meaningful gender variance. All gendering is idealized gender, with only feminine presenting women and masculine presenting men fitting into the paradigm—queerly gendered figures like Allen, Weird Barbie, Earring Magic Ken, and Sugar’s Daddy Ken are largely excluded from Barbie world society, both under the Barbies’ matriarchy and the Kens’ patriarchy, are regulated to the fringes and are either ridiculed or ignored. Allen, arguably the closest of these queerly gendered figures to the Ken’s idealized masculinity because his queerness is quieter but ultimately present, finds that under the Barbies’ supposedly utopian matriarchy, he is tolerated but not accepted, and that in the Kens’ patriarchy, he is fully terrified for his life.

Stereotypical Barbie’s narrative arc is a queerly gendered one, hinted at by everything from the Indigo Girls to her inability to fit in with the other Barbies. Ultimately, the movie wants us to understand that idealized expectations of gender are harmful, but simultaneously doesn’t provide any real source of liberation for its queerly gendered characters other than escaping their society for another one. The only reason the queerly gendered Weird Barbie is offered a cabinet position at the end is because she is a woman in a matriarchal society, and because the other Barbies feel guilt at not accepting her—but their feelings about her don’t change. They still think she’s not like them.

On the front of manhood and masculinity, something the movie glosses over is that before the Kens are introduced to the concept of patriarchy, they are marginalized people in the Barbie World society. They have no political, social, or economic power, and during the course of the movie it’s even revealed that they not only don’t have homes, but that the Barbies don’t even care enough to know that they don’t have homes. When the Kens discover patriarchy, their enthusiasm isn’t because they inherently think men deserve to rule the world, but because they were exposed, for the first time, to a system where they had power, and they decided they were sick of being subjected. But this point is undermined by a subtle through line of biological essentialism; early on, we see two Kens ready to fight over Stereotypical Barbie’s affections, suggesting that even here, men are inherently more prone to violence. And the society built in Barbie world is a society in which women are naturally intelligent and capable leaders, and where men are vapid and stupid. Interests and activities viewed as classically masculine are dismissed as frivolous and goofy—even ones without any moral or ethical association.

The only men who are exempt are those with queer genders, and even then, this ignores the well-documented misogyny many cis gay men express, and still positions them outside of society without any greener grass in sight. And in Barbie world, queerness for men equates femininity (just as Weird Barbie’s queerness is something more masculine than the other Barbies, even if not masculinity proper), which implied that masculinity, not manhood, is actually the crime, and that manhood and masculinity are inextricably linked (again, Weird Barbie isn’t masculine, per se. She just isn’t feminine).

So while the movie’s message seems to be rooted in the idea that idealized femininity and idealized masculinity are harmful, it seems to also believe that masculinity and manhood are bad, and femininity and womanhood are good, but only if performed in the right way. We are supposed to understand that even if Stereotypical Barbie needs to leave to truly understand herself, the other Barbies have concrete senses of self and purpose, and that even if idealized gender expectations are harmful, Barbie world is better when ruled by the femininity—even that under feminine rule, it’s a utopia. But it’s still a world where queer expressions of gender and sexuality don’t have the opportunity to exist (Barbies only date Kens after all, no matter how many young sapphics made their Barbies scissor). Weird Barbie is specifically an interesting representation of queerness—it is only masculine girls (masculine in this context just means sapphic; sapphicness is a divergence from femininity in any society that values idealized femininity above all other forms), who are believed to have destroyed their Barbies as children. It’s often a point of pride among women who “aren’t like the other girls,” or those who like to feel different. Of course the reality is different—I’m a butch who never destroyed my Barbies; I just made them help my Power Rangers save the day. But the discrepancy between Weird Barbie (who is queer coded in a way straight audiences will likely understand) and Stereotypical Barbie (who is queercoded in a way likely only more accessible to queers, but specifically lesbians, who isn’t attracted to any of the Kens who want her but can’t figure out why), is stark. Stereotypical Barbie isn’t cast out of society because she is still performing a degree of acceptable femininity, and has the privilege choosing to leave. Weird Barbie, on the other hand, is forced to the fringes of society because she is visibly queer.

It’s fascinating to me that feminine presenting cis women (or those like AFAB she/theys who may not be cis but essentially move through the world as if they are feminine presenting cis women), have universally labeled the Barbie movie “for the girls,” when in reality, it feels to me more of a movie for those who fail to perform gender correctly. But I understand why, because the movie still, loudly and clearly, sends the message that femininity is good, and masculinity is bad���and of course the people most harmed by this message, which is oh so prevalent in leftist spaces, queer spaces, feminist spaces, are trans fems (bc transmisogyny), trans mascs, butches, studs, people whose masculinity is racialized, and people who experience marginalized masculinities.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Ethics of Giving

The ethics of giving explores the moral principles that govern charitable donations, philanthropy, and other acts of generosity. It involves questions about how much we ought to give, whom we should prioritize when giving, and what ethical responsibilities accompany our capacity to help others.

Key Themes in the Ethics of Giving:

Moral Obligation vs. Voluntariness:

Moral obligation addresses whether individuals are morally required to give to those in need, or whether giving is a voluntary act of kindness. Philosophers like Peter Singer argue that those with wealth have a moral duty to help the less fortunate, especially when it involves relatively small sacrifices for significant benefits.

The opposing view suggests that charity is voluntary, a supererogatory (beyond duty) action that individuals can choose to perform but are not ethically bound to do.

How Much to Give:

A significant ethical question is: how much should one give? Some argue for a proportional approach, suggesting that people should give based on their means, while others propose more radical positions, like giving to the point where additional giving would significantly reduce one’s own quality of life.

Peter Singer's famous "drowning child" analogy suggests that, just as you would be morally obligated to save a drowning child if it required minimal sacrifice, so too are you obligated to give as much as possible to help those in poverty or suffering, as long as it doesn’t cause you undue harm.

Effectiveness and Impact:

The effectiveness of giving is a central issue, particularly in movements like effective altruism, which argues that giving should be directed toward the most effective causes, where each dollar can have the greatest impact. This leads to the ethical question of whether it is morally wrong to give to causes that are less efficient or less impactful when better alternatives exist.

Should people focus on saving lives through global poverty initiatives, for instance, or is it equally moral to donate to causes that enhance the quality of life or support cultural endeavors?

Prioritizing Recipients:

The ethics of giving also addresses whom to prioritize in charitable efforts. Should we give to those closest to us (friends, family, local community), or should we prioritize the global poor, who might be in more urgent need? This raises questions of proximity vs. global responsibility.

Some argue for a moral cosmopolitanism, where all lives are equally valuable regardless of location, while others believe it is natural and acceptable to prioritize those closest to us.

Motivations for Giving:

Ethical concerns also focus on the motivation behind giving. Is it more virtuous to give anonymously, or does it matter if one seeks recognition for their charity? Altruism, at its core, is about giving for the sake of others, but self-interested giving (such as giving for social status or tax benefits) complicates this ideal.

Conditional vs. Unconditional Giving:

There is an ethical debate over whether giving should be conditional (requiring recipients to meet certain criteria, such as job training or rehabilitation) or unconditional (giving freely without stipulations). Conditional giving can be seen as paternalistic, while unconditional giving might be criticized for encouraging dependency.

The Role of Government and Systemic Change:

Some ethicists argue that while individual giving is important, it cannot replace systemic changes that address the root causes of poverty, inequality, and injustice. This raises questions about whether it is more ethical to donate to direct aid or to support efforts that seek to reform broader economic, social, and political systems.

Opportunity Cost:

The ethics of giving also considers the opportunity cost of donations—what could have been done with the resources had they not been given? For example, donating to a cause might divert funds from other areas like personal or familial needs, which could raise ethical concerns about balancing generosity with responsibility toward one's immediate obligations.

Ethical Theories on Giving:

Utilitarianism: From a utilitarian perspective, the ethical action is to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. Giving, therefore, should be directed to the most effective means of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number.

Deontology: Deontological ethics focuses on the duty to give rather than the consequences. Some argue that giving is a moral duty regardless of the outcome, based on the principle of helping others in need.

Virtue Ethics: According to virtue ethics, giving is a manifestation of virtues like generosity and compassion. The emphasis is on cultivating good character and acting from a place of moral virtue, rather than solely focusing on the consequences.

The ethics of giving is a multifaceted area of moral philosophy that deals with not only how and why we give but also to whom, how much, and with what motivation. It raises important questions about our responsibilities to others and challenges us to consider how best to balance personal well-being with the needs of those around us, particularly in a world marked by inequality and suffering.

[not-terezi-pyrope]

Philosophical survey/poll of the day: Disregarding the morality of usage, what is the morality of *buying* black market drugs?

I've been thinking about this again in light of recent consumer boycotts. First let me state upfront that I am not soliciting advice for me personally, this is a hypothetical. Neither am I advocating that people buy or use drugs, nor am I condemning people who do. I am generally very pro-autonomy for questions of drug use, and think that a person using drugs has, in and of itself, no moral weight.

I am interested in what people think about the moral weight of buying drugs off the black market, however. Elaboration below, followed by a poll:

My question is about the morality of accessing the drugs trade as an end consumer, given that, according to popular conception at least, a lot of substances are supplied by "criminal gangs" who might also participate in more violent crime? Like, obviously this isn't so much a deal for weed because that's probably just some dudes growing it in their attic, but consider for example when people buy harder drugs, like cocaine, for example.

You can't trace the supply chain, but even the end point of purchase is some small-time dealer who sells drugs and isn't involved in anything else, at some point it will have been smuggled into your country, which might involve larger gangs, or like, organized crime operations who also are involved with violent crime. You likely don't know that for sure, but the point is you can't know, so my question is, does the spectre of potential violent crime in the process of producing and transporting an illegal drug make the purchase of the drug immoral, in the same way that some people say it is immoral not to boycott legal companies that are complicit in atrocities?

Alternatively, there are also these factors that may or may not excuse this:

One might argue that if you aren't aware of any specific harms in the production of a product, then you as the consumer shouldn't be obligated to suspect them, even if the context is the sale of black market goods.

One might argue that the harms perpetrated by the black market drugs trade, insofar one would contribute to them as an end-buyer, have their moral weight placed upon the legal system for outlawing the drug in question and therefore not allowing a verifiably ethical vendor to exist.

One might argue that the demand for illegal drugs is so ubiquitous and constant that whether you personally "boycott" the industry or not makes no difference, so you shouldn't feel bad for skimming off the top of what's already there, you're only contributing a very small percentage and the core audience for drugs isn't going to go anywhere no matter what you do, as the last centuries of prohibitions has proven

One might argue that the scope of criminal violence involved in drugs supply is overstated/sensationalized, and that any specific source of drugs probably isn't going to involve cartels assassinating people like in breaking bad or whatever, if the drug is produced by countries with low economic development then you might actually be doing good by providing income for people who have no alternatives

One might argue that the harms caused by the production and smuggling of black market goods are in no way worse than the harms perpetrated by the legal economy, which also has its fingers in many violent or exploitative acts and provably so, so it's not meaningfully any different to ordering from McDonald's or whatever.

I had a conversation with friends about this several years ago and I think that most people who were already okay with drug use in a personal capacity thought that the purchase of drugs is probably fine, but I'm interested to see what people think these days, and now tumblr has polls, so share your thoughts:

[elsa16744]

What Are ESG Funds? 

Investors screen companies based on their sustainability compliance scores, and ESG metrics have enabled investment firms to satisfy investor requirements. One result of the increased focus on corporate sustainability is ESG funds. This post will describe different components of ESG funds with examples. 

What is an ESG Fund? 

ESG funds are financial investment vehicles offered by private equity firms, mutual fund managers, and portfolio management solutions. These funds utilize environmental, social, and governance indicators to prioritize sustainable companies in their stock selection. 

However, ESG metrics and performance calculation methods vary across regional sustainability accounting frameworks. So, investors and business owners depend on ESG consulting to evaluate their compliance ratings. 

Consider that an investment fund, company stock, bond, or real estate project claims to comply with ESG criteria. Investors will require objective data analytics to cross-examine the validity of such claims. Besides, sustainability benchmarking can reveal other investment opportunities with a better balance between ESG compliance and business growth potential. 

Nevertheless, many ESG funds utilize strategies like excluding corporations known for ethically ambiguous practices and offerings. For example, an ESG fund can avoid including an alcohol business in its portfolio due to the social impact concerns. 

Types of ESG Funds 

1| Ethical Funds 

Consulting firms can help you shortlist the funds that use morality, social ethics, faith, and a broader concept of “doing good.” Such mutual funds are ethical funds, and ESG solutions can help investors study more holistic data and their performance. 

Each society has unwritten rules, such as keeping children safe or respecting elderly citizens. These values drive investor behavior, resulting in the rise of ethical investing. Imagine high net-worth individuals (HNWI) investing in an ethical fund after a social impact analysis. The “benefit” emphasizes the religious, moral, and political gains rather than returns. 

Consider an ethical fund that utilizes the raised funds to eradicate the malnutrition crisis in the world’s underdeveloped areas. Some investors will use their political views to determine companies that deserve financial assistance. 

These concepts often correlate with intangible gains like the religious concepts of virtues and vices. Therefore, some investors request ESG consulting firms to screen ethical funds irrespective of a lower return on investment (ROI). 

2| Social Impact Funds 

Social impact investing involves corporate stocks related to renewable energy companies or forest and biodiversity conservation. ESG solutions can research the socially positive impact of an enterprise to evaluate whether it qualifies to be in the investment portfolio of social impact funds. 

While ethical ESG funds investors leverage religious, moral, or political investor philosophies, social impact funds exclusively emphasize how an investment benefits society. For example, supporting vocational e-learning platforms increases the economic competitiveness of a demographic. 

Likewise, some social impact funds garner capital support from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), insurance companies, banks, cooperative societies, and HNWIs. ESG consulting firms consider the social impact funds advantageous due to a more objective outlook driven by tangible gains. 

After all, quantifying and modeling statistical data on literacy rates, rehabilitated substance abusers, or renewable energy research outcomes is possible via appropriate ESG solutions. 

3| Green Funds 

Green funds select portfolio companies by studying the environmentally harmful or beneficial effects of corporate activities. For example, ineffective waste management causes pollution of water bodies. If an animal or human consumes water from these resources, they become ill. Polluted water can also damage trees through soil seepage near the roots. 

Investors want to support organizations that realize the ecological cost of industrial development. Such companies always discover recycling and waste reduction technologies. Therefore, ESG consulting firms list green funds as the ones that include only environmentally responsible brands in the portfolio. 

Nevertheless, the performance of a green fund will fluctuate due to market trends. You want to balance environmentalist investor activism with holistic risk management. Otherwise, your capital resources will become available to a less reliable enterprise. If an investor experiences a significant loss due to green fund investments, their ability to support other eco-friendly brands diminishes. 

Green funds still witness a rise in demand because more investors are utilizing ESG solutions to screen the companies working on renewable energy, forest preservation, pollution analytics, and animal protection projects. 

Screening Strategies Employed by the Best ESG Funds 

1| Compliance Benchmarking 

An ESG score relies on the company’s performance across sustainability accounting metrics. You can estimate it using statistical models. Still, different ESG solutions will develop proprietary performance assessment methods. Therefore, investors must monitor multiple online databases to determine whether a company is committed to sustainable development goals. 

Compliance benchmarking uses a single performance management system to determine ESG scores. It reveals the business risks associated with unsustainable operations. So, the manager can selectively address these issues that reduce their ESG score. 

A benchmark involves reference values to help with progress monitoring over time. Managers and investors require compliance benchmarking to check how a company has improved its ESG performance. The ESG Funds leverage benchmarking when selecting stocks for their portfolio. 

2| Peer Analytics 

Two eco-friendly companies can have significant differences across ESG performance metrics. Likewise, businesses working in different industries might exhibit identical ESG compliance ratings. However, comparing them with their business rivals in the same industry gives you a clearer estimate of their sustainability. 

Peer analytics investigates multiple organizations to identify the best fit for investors’ preferences and risk profiles. You can quickly learn about which company tops the environmental compliance charts. Later, ESG funds use these insights to distribute their financial resources across the most sustainable companies. 

3| Greenwashing Inspections 

A brand’s reputation as an ESG-first enterprise must be authentic. Verifying the validity of what a company claims as its sustainability performance can assist the investors in separating the gene the genuinely eco-friendly organizations from the companies that apply greenwashing tactics. 

Greenwashing is a result of unethical marketing and ESG report manipulation. It includes creating and falsifying sustainability compliance datasets. So, the company’s compliance ratings seem better than the accurate scores. Professional ESG consulting firms always inspect sustainability disclosure documents to identify greenwashing attempts. 

4| Controversy Intelligence 

Historical performance records associated with an organization can be instrumental in verifying the legitimacy of its ESG compliance claims. Controversy research and intelligence gathering will allow the fund managers to audit a company’s brand presence across multiple media outlets. 

Innovative ESG solutions exist today, featuring scalable social listening capabilities and press coverage analytics. Their essential services include tracking how often publications and social media mention a corporate brand. 

Investment strategists can also benefit from more advanced social media listening tools like sentiment analytics and materiality assessment. For example, an organization might have an attractive ESG score greater than 90. Simultaneously, some controversial events could have a particular connection with this organization, and ESG funds will consider it in screening. 

Examples of ESG Funds 

1| Joint Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Fund 

The United Nations (UN) created a financial vehicle known as SDG Fund in 2014. This financial mechanism used to have many backers among the UN’s member countries and philanthropists when it was operational. However, the Joint SDG Fund is its latest spiritual successor. It also champions a multi-dimensional cooperative approach to address sustainability integration challenges. 

Several agencies help United Nations deliver on-ground support to the marginalized, financially weak, and old individuals in over 23 geopolitical territories through this fund. The Joint SDG Fund concentrates on solving the contemporary social-economic and environmental challenges by promoting the following. 

Universal access to authoritative educational resources on climate change, 

Social protection systems for the workers in informal sectors, 

Scientific breakthroughs vital for sustainable development, 

Energy-efficient technologies and research innovations, 

Disaster risk management and response strategies, 

Availability of clean drinking water. 

The characteristics of the joint sustainable development goals fund qualify it as an ESG fund. Therefore, some ESG consulting firms recommend this financial vehicle to environmentally conscious investors. 

2| Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund (VFTAX) 

VFTAX tracks US Select Index Series termed FTSE4Good. The Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) index series emphasizes environmental, social, and governance practices. So, VFTAX utilizes this resource to screen portfolio companies and corresponding stocks. 

This ESG fund excludes the enterprises creating “vice products” like gambling, adult entertainment, tobacco, and addictive beverages. Investors will observe that VFTAX also avoids corporations relying heavily on non-renewable energy resources. 

Besides, any company involved in controversies and discriminatory practices will not make it into the VFTAX portfolio. Moreover, it excludes businesses creating weapons systems for the military and civilians. 

VFTAX has a low expense ratio. The minimum investment value is 3000 USD. Institutional investors should also consider VFTNX related to this social index fund, requiring 5 million US dollars. Its portfolio comprises Amazon Inc., Alphabet Inc., Microsoft Corp, and Apple Inc. 

Conclusion 

ESG funds utilize sustainability accounting frameworks for portfolio management. Investors conscious about how companies affect the world prefer ESG-based investment strategies. Therefore, modern ESG consulting firms develop statistical models to quantify corporate compliance across sustainability metrics. 

Mitigating carbon risks, affordable Healthcare, rehabilitating substance abusers, and offering universal access to clean water are the admirable objectives of sustainable businesses. High net-worth individuals (HNWI) and institutional investors also want to make a positive impact. 

So, ESG funds allow them to cooperate for ethical, religious, political, social, environmental, and humanitarian development. Still, compliance assessment, monitoring, and reporting remind advanced technological assistance offered by talented domain experts. 

A leader in ESG solutions, SG Analytics, empowers organizations and investment managers to conduct holistic analytical operations for sustainability reporting and impact investing. Contact us today for automated multilingual analytics across 1000+ indicators to increase compliance ratings. 

[bopsweneverforgot]

Marques Houston: How “Cancellation” Transforms A Fan’s Listening Experience

Beyonce once spoke on how social media and celebrity culture transform how consumers enjoy their work. Instead of judging their art, we now begin to feel their work based on what we know about their lives. As time has passed and information has become more accessible, visibility of how fans directly finance luxurious celebrity lifestyles has transitioned music fans to investors. And investors have a right to know what their funds are allocated to, right? 

The average person may say R. Kelly’s cancellation has changed their listening experience the most (and rightfully so. He’s paved the way for so many to be canceled after him). However, in my world of delulu, Marques Houston’s cancellation has been one of the most uncanny. With the compilation of revelations of his 20-year age-gap marriage with a formerly missing teenager, his proximity to Chris Stokes, his sexual abuse allegations from B2K member Raz B, and his recent dissolution of the fake brotherhood he once shared with Omarion has simply baffled me.

Many laugh when I tell them how much of an avid admirer of Marques Houston’s musical catalog I am. However, from an investor’s standpoint I’m extremely disappointed and couldn’t give one Chuck E. Cheese token towards a tour or any branded merchandise to support the things I know to be true. Yet I would be a liar if I didn’t tell you if “Do You Mind” isn’t #43 on my most played song of 2022 on Apple Music. In similar R.Kelly fashion, his work has spanned over decades from his days as a member of Immature to the 2000s as he transitioned to be a solo artist. And to add insult to injury, he’s played pivotal roles in film and television from playing Roger in “Sister,Sister” to playing Elgin in “U Got Served”. 

Many people scoff at the “separate the art for the artist” mindset because supporting problematic artists’ work enables their problematic behavior to flourish and capability to harm others. However, the gift and curse of today’s music consumption model of streaming disrupts the once lucrative business model it once was. As we see time and time again, without a true, die-hard fan supporting artists directly in purchasing their merchandise or concert tickets, an artist suffers. Unfortunately, my #43 spot on my Replay 2022 playlist on Apple Music will not subsidize Marques’s lifestyle in the same way if I bought the Naked album in 2005. What both artists and fans/investors have to remember is that music is art and art can be a form of therapy. The memories of singing “Naked” on repeat to my ex in high school on Facetime or adding “Exclusively” and “I Don’t Mind” to my love manifestation playlist to reframe what love looked like in my life in my budding adulthood will never change. His music is associated to so many moments in my life and his talent is undeniable. However, like streaming, social media has been a gift and a curse as well. It had been a tool for fans to better connect with artists yet a microscope to highlight their darkest moments we may have never known if it occurred in 1975. 

As celebrity culture is dying as it becomes more accessible to an array of influencers and a plethora of random viral sensations, celebrities rely on public image and likeability to create die-hard fans to support their livelihood in an impactful way. Artists are simply humans with humanistic qualities who just happen to be famous. On the other hand, as regular people are battling the economic landscape post-pandemic coupled with the crippling state of inflation, any dollar a fan puts toward an artist is a huge investment. As music is therapy for most people, fans want to financially and morally support celebrities they identify with and who inspire them. As artists keep that in mind in their work, they’ll understand behaving ethically and morally in today’s social climate is vital to thrive in the music business and to preserve a fan’s listening experience.  

[sheathandshear]

The "Abolish police/military/prisons! And if you point out any problems with this you are a FASCIST!" people are incredibly annoying not just because of their unwillingness to engage with the complexities and realities of these topics (though they are) but chiefly because they are putting SO much political energy into something that is never going to happen. There is zero majority political will anywhere to eliminate all forms of police and incarceration. Zilch. Meanwhile, the events in Ukraine are making it quite clear that actually, for countries that have aggressive militarized imperialist neighbors, having a standing military is quite necessary for literal survival! And unlike other examples of "people said it would never happen but it did! GOTCHA!" (generally, slavery), there are no powerful economic incentives for state violence abolition either. (Sidebar: Slavery does still exist in many parts of the world despite it being "abolished", because it turns out that making something illegal does not actually force people to stop doing it -- as proponents of prison/police abolition claim to know, and yet somehow don't understand that in the absence of state-sponsored and at least semi-regulated violent "just" actions, people reach for personal violent "justice", which is... not better!) And I do kind of wonder whether uncompromising, realistically impossible goals are the whole point -- to shriek and shame in favor of morally pure nonsense that is ethically laudable and has no chance in hell of ever happening so as to avoid engaging in the real work of political and social change, which is dirty and distressing and imperfect and always ends up hurting someone, frequently through entirely unintended and unforeseen means, even if it benefits the majority. That they are so fixated on doing something that will produce nothing precisely because they are terrified of actually doing something productive that might make them a person who Causes Harm.

[emberoops]

[ 🧱 ] how would you describe your muses’ morality? what are their core values?

Ethically grey, verging on evil. Ember is a fan of hedonistic calculus; that is, that which brings the least suffering and the most joy into the world is the morally correct choice. Great until the existence of oil magnates causes massive harm and he calculates that the removal of that harm is worth the fear and mourning their deaths will cause. Or the economic harm the defeat of their empire will cause.

He wants to help people, in other words, but what he is WILLING to do to do so - what he HAS done - makes him, at best, an anti-hero.

[latineslytherin]

"She's just the IP holder" so you have enough brain power to understand that she's profiting from the game and using it to make trans folks lives worse, but not smart enough to understand that giving her money makes you a bad person? Also I wasn't calling you cis, I was mocking whiny cis streamers complaining about being mocked for funding trans death lol.

Ah another essentialist forcing their morality judgements on others.

I don’t care about essentialist ethical binary labels. That’s a Christian ideology that I frankly don’t put stock in at all.

For me, my worldview, there is no such thing as a bad or good person. Only people who do things that cause harm and do things that don’t cause harm. I have not directly caused harm. Nor has anyone else that bought the game before the outrage. The people who have, that will are further along the economic chain. And the fact you and people like you draw the line here instead of at the line of people who do the actual harm, shows how you look for an easy target that looks weak and easy to manipulate- which is a tactic used by bullies. I should know being a former one and is exactly what I used to look for.

Now, what you should be asking if people are comfortable or uncomfortable they contributed into a chain of money exchange that will ultimately be used for those harmful things.

And for me, I’ve had to get used to many uncomfortable things. Being trans, being latine, being queer in spaces that try to actively convert me into their cult (Christianity) like thinking and morality is the primary one.

This one purchase is the least of the things that make me uncomfortable and it barely registers. I have other worries.

[cmuenvs3000w23]

Why can't we be better? (Unit 05: Freelance)

When I look at this photo I see more than just the lake, or the day it was captured and why I was there. To me this photo represents adversity. The goal is the other shoreline, to get there you have to swim. Without any context, it's a guessing game full of variables; temperature, chemical hazards, wildlife, boaters, depth, distance, time constraints, weather, etc. The importance of this comparison is that I view the challenges of communicating from the highly-educated to the general public and vice versa, the same way. A battle of adversity. Are you willing to make the swim? Is it worth it to even try? Will anyone care?

I believe in the freedom of information, the freedom of speech and the access to clear, capable and conscious communication for all and the effectiveness of a well-informed electorate to make morally and ethically smart choices. I believe in the good of people and our responsibilities as co-habitants of this planet to be environmentalists because we posses the power to do so.

Thematic Question (Please read carefully): Why would you, purposely leave a space worse than how you found it?

I find the context of this question to be applicable on numerous stages of argument in benefit of environmentalism and an advocate of a strong collaborative global society. The thought I am trying to instil in your minds is; what reason do we really have that excuses us for acting deliberately harmful to our planet?

In my opinion, I believe our pitfall lies within our communication. We currently live in one of the most polarizing eras of humanity, from civil rights issues, the protection of biodiversity against medical/technological/economic advancement, population and sustainability crises, to acts of war. The way we conduct, present and express ourselves individually and as part of a group dictate the terms of our situations. Yet, we choose to act in blatant disregard of our planet and the life it is able to provide and sustain. The solution is to provide everyone with the information and process to effect collaborative positive change, because the consequences of inaction from unwillingness and ignorance is morally and ethically destructive.

[sassypotatoe1]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE farmers will literally almost fucking kill a sheerer if they cut their sheep badly while sheering, like they won't do it but it'll be close. We've domesticated and bred sheep for millenia to produce longer thicker fleece for our wool, they can not go without sheering if they're not short-fleeced sheep. They get mats, they get infestations like ticks or botfly maggots that WILL KILL THEM WITH DISEASE, long and thick fleece catches on things and rips out causing superficial wounds that are not visible and can get infected or attract infestation.

Sheep are not our slaves bred and exploited for our gain alone and to their detriment. A flock of wool-sheep live really long, have the best diets, a warm and cosy place to sleep, get all their healthcare needs taken care of for free, get to roam and graze to their heart's desire and in exchange we keep their hair when they get a haircut.

And wool is not just used for the fiber, which is fantastic by the way you will not get the same temperature regulation from synthetic fibers no matter what claims are made. Wool is coated in lanolin, the sheep version of sebum, which is a fantastic moisturizer and skin barrier protector, I use lanolin hand cream for my eczema, it's also stupidly good for waterproofing and can also be burned as a fuel, but most of its use is in cosmetics.

Like imagine if for millenia, some advanced alien race upgraded and maintained all our infrastructure, streamlined our industry and made it fully sustainable, solved man-made climate change, world hunger and economic disparities, solved world sociopolitics and gave us all free advanced alien health care, and all they asked in return is our armpit hair every time we shave. And they even develop the best possible methods of shaving so we no longer get razor burn or ingrown hairs. And they don't even change any of our culture and beliefs, just the practical aspects. Would you feel like an exploited slave, or would you think that's a pretty good deal?

Like say what you want about the meat industry and I'll probably agree with you that is unsustainable, exploitative and abusive as fuck (but so is a majority of the agricultural practices used to produce plant based alternatives to meat) but for the love of god animal byproducts that do not harm the animal to remove (fleece, honey, milk) in moderation and with gentle processes are infinitely better than the substitutes. For a multitude of reasons.

You can be vegan but you better be willing to properly vet every bit of your consumption in terms of sustainability if you want to claim it is for moral reasons because replacing good-practice local humane meat production with slave labor water stealing soy patties helps exactly no one and nothing. If it's because of emotional reasons, or because you don't like the taste or texture of animal products, that's all good and well, but don't pretend you're doing it for sustainability and ethics if you're not willing to put a single iota of research into it.

[stevetickolo24]

Plus Size Lingerie Models and Their Impact on Body Image Representation

Plus-size lingerie models play a pivotal role in reshaping societal beauty standards and promoting body positivity. By representing diverse body types in a historically narrow industry, they inspire confidence, normalize self-acceptance, and foster inclusivity. Here’s an in-depth look at their impact on body image representation:

Challenging Unrealistic Beauty Standards For decades, media and fashion perpetuated thinness as the ideal body type. Plus-size lingerie models disrupt this narrative by showcasing the beauty of fuller figures. They demonstrate that confidence and allure aren’t limited to a specific size, encouraging individuals to embrace their natural bodies.

Promoting Body Positivity These models embody the body positivity movement, which celebrates bodies of all shapes, sizes, and forms. By proudly wearing lingerie, they challenge stigmas around weight and prove that all bodies deserve to feel sexy and empowered.

Inspiring Representation Seeing models who reflect their own body type helps individuals feel validated and seen. Representation matters, and plus-size lingerie models provide a source of inspiration for those who’ve felt excluded from mainstream beauty. This inclusivity extends beyond size to include diversity in skin tone, age, and physical ability, making the industry more representative of society as a whole.

Normalizing Diverse Bodies in Intimate Wear Lingerie is intimate by nature, and showcasing diverse bodies in such garments breaks down taboos around visibility. It normalizes the idea that every body can wear and enjoy lingerie. These models help shift the focus from “hiding flaws” to celebrating curves, creating a more empowering narrative.

Boosting Confidence in Consumers Seeing confident plus-size models in lingerie campaigns inspires consumers to feel the same way about themselves. Shoppers are more likely to explore and invest in lingerie when they see models who resemble their own body types, fostering a deeper connection between brands and their audience.

Driving Change in the Fashion Industry The rise of plus-size lingerie models has forced brands to reconsider their size ranges, marketing strategies, and inclusivity efforts. Companies like Savage X Fenty, Aerie, and Playful Promises feature plus-size models prominently, challenging competitors to follow suit or risk being left behind.

Creating Role Models for Self-Love Many plus-size lingerie models, like Ashley Graham, Tess Holliday, and Paloma Elsesser, use their platforms to promote self-love, mental health awareness, and body acceptance. Through social media and interviews, they share personal stories that resonate with audiences, building a sense of community and support.

Fighting Against Body Shaming By unapologetically embracing their bodies, plus-size models challenge the culture of body shaming that has persisted for so long. They highlight that beauty comes in all forms and that confidence is not contingent on conforming to outdated ideals.

Empowering Future Generations Plus-size lingerie models pave the way for future generations to grow up with a broader understanding of beauty. Young people exposed to diverse body types in media are more likely to develop healthier relationships with their own bodies and others’.

Driving Economic Success for Inclusivity Representation isn’t just a moral imperative—it’s good business. Brands that feature plus-size lingerie models tap into a vast, underserved market, proving that inclusivity is both ethical and profitable. Consumers reward brands that align with their values, pushing the industry further toward diversity and acceptance.

The Ripple Effect The influence of plus-size lingerie models extends far beyond the fashion industry. They inspire individuals to feel comfortable in their own skin, challenge harmful stereotypes, and advocate for broader cultural change. Their presence is a powerful reminder that beauty is diverse, and confidence is the ultimate accessory.

[eton75]

The Elon Musk Dilemma: Jealousy or Moral Outrage?

#ElonMusk #WhartonAlumni #PoliticalDivide #TrumpEconomics

A good friend from my college days recently accused me of being jealous of Elon Musk—his wealth, power, and influence. It’s a strange accusation, especially considering that we both attended the University of Pennsylvania, just as Musk and Trump did. The idea that I, someone from a similar financial background, could be envious of him is as absurd as accusing someone of being jealous of, say, Herman Göring, simply for opposing their principles.

What struck me most is that this accusation didn’t come from the usual group of Musk’s cheerleaders—white South African Afrikaners who often view criticism of Musk as an attack on their “countryman.” It came from a friend, someone I thought would see Musk for what he truly is. I simply told him: “Read the California vs. Tesla lawsuit, and then let’s talk.”

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend among my wealthy fraternity brothers, many of whom graduated from Wharton and now run billion-dollar companies. Their allegiance has shifted to Musk, Trump, and Vivek Ramaswamy’s proposed government cuts. Why? The answer is simple: money. The economic policies these figures champion promise tax cuts and financial benefits for the ultra-rich—benefits that were set to expire soon but will now likely be extended under a Trump administration.

Some of these die-hard Republicans, who once claimed to have voted for Kamala Harris, are now singing Trump’s praises. It’s all about self-interest. They’re willing to overlook Musk’s ties to the far right, his questionable ethics, and his disregard for the harm he causes. Why? Because his so-called “quirks” don’t affect their bank balances—they enhance them.

When I criticize Musk’s authoritarian tendencies, his alignment with far-right ideologies, and his exploitation of workers, I’m dismissed as “bitter” or “nasty.” They tell me to “cool it with the anti-Elon posts,” arguing that “great men” like Musk should be allowed their eccentricities, no matter how many people they hurt.

But I cannot. The idea of oligarchs like Musk, Trump, and Putin—yes, the real richest man alive—running the government terrifies me. These are men whose wealth and power overshadow morality, democracy, and human decency. My stance against Musk isn’t jealousy; it’s a moral imperative.

Unfortunately, my strong views have created a rift between me and my wealthy, right-leaning peers. While we share similar financial beginnings, my disdain for racism and unchecked power has pushed me to the opposite end of the political spectrum.

Am I bitter? Perhaps. But it’s not out of jealousy—it’s out of frustration at watching powerful men manipulate systems for their gain while their supporters turn a blind eye. Until the public fully understands the darker side of Elon Musk and his ambitions, I’ll keep speaking out—whether my friends like it or not.

#WealthAndPower #Racism #PoliticalIntegrity #EconomicJustice